Some guy would probably tell me that [] your small human mind can't comprehend it, but it can comprehend some things; it knows 1 + 1 has to be two, so its not like it knows nothing. For example, some arguments say that since everything must have a cause, there must be an uncaused cause; but I don't see how existence can't imply time; please explain to me.
-
1but doesnt this imply that god cant exist if exist connotates time– loopitCommented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:08
-
No one who thinks God exists outside of time would agree that existence implies temporality, so this is not an argument; it is a conclusion. You need an argument to back up the conclusion.– David GudemanCommented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:29
-
1Do these answer your question? 'Is it possible for God to exist outside of time?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/39602/… 'Are gods also bound to the laws of physics?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/47105/…– CriglCraglCommented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:29
-
1@MauroALLEGRANZA: Prior, huh 😊– CriglCraglCommented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:30
-
Eternity transcends time . It is a problem of Zen contemplation. The West refers to such experiences as ineffable. 1. Enlightenment is like a dumb man who has had a dream. He knows about it, but he cannot tell it. 2. Enlightenment is like a man who drinks a glass of water. He knows himself whether it is warm or cold. 3. An instant realization sees endless time. Endless time is as one-moment. Only a photon, which has zero mass, but momentum and energy, can travel at the speed limit of light. A clock with mass cannot reach the speed of light. Moments and photons are timeless (eternal)!– SystemTheoryCommented Jun 20, 2023 at 19:27
|
Show 8 more comments
3 Answers
"Some guy would probably tell me that it your small human mind can't comprehend it"
This is the point of Kant's antinomies, that time and infinity are a bafflement to reason, and so at least Kant starts again, from the point of view of mind, that "strikes a self", which Heidegger then rearranges as self making a change to self thus effecting time. And from this subjective, co-emergence of time an operational cognition can subsequently conceptualise a different kind of impersonal time: clock-time, which is then challenged by the understanding of a gravitational singularity in which clock-time is stretched to the limit. Now, in this context should we discuss beginnings and endings? : the remotest things we could possibly attempt, or shall we perhaps deal with what is at hand and what keeps this show on the road : the self generation of time that facilitates human existence. (Not as the existence of humans but the form of existence co-created by humans.)
answered Jun 20, 2023 at 18:35
"Some guy would probably tell me that [] your small human mind can't comprehend it" Yes, that guy would be a Brittish Empiricist like Hume or Locke. They consider the mind to be a tabula rasa, a blank sheet of paper on which we can write whatever we want.
That seems fine and well, because after all, we learn go to school for many years to gain knowledge, and then spend even more years systematizing and expanding what we have learnt at school. Empirical knowledge seems like that's the only true and valid knowledge, however, as you said "but it can comprehend some things". What you meant to say is that you can comprehend them a priori, just with your reason, apart from any empirical sense data. 1 + 1 = 2 is an example of such knowledge.
Around 1750, a very smart young man named Immanuel Kant spent his whole youth thinking about empirical and a priori knowledge, and he came to an amazing conclusion that empiricists are wrong. They are right about some things, but the foundational concepts behind Hume's and Locke's philosophies are mistaken, in particular they are mistaken in their explanations of what causality is, and how we learn a priori truths like those of mathematics or metaphysics.
"it knows 1 + 1 has to be two, so its not like it knows nothing". Yes, the mind comes equipped with a priori cognitive faculties that allow you to learn mathematics and other abstract areas of knowledge.
"For example, some arguments say that since everything must have a cause, there must be an uncaused cause". That is another a priori truth that you know prior to any empirical dealings with the world.
Seems like you still have not read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', so go ahead and start today! This book is what separates serious philosophers from amateurs. A philosophy professor will never take you seriously if you have not the 'Critique'. Doing philosophy without seriously studying Kant is like doing mathematics without knowing any calculus.
answered Jun 21, 2023 at 12:30
-
It seems like you spent 6 paragraphs trying to argue how the asker doesn't know what they're talking about, while making no attempt whatsoever to answer the question they actually asked. Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 12:50
-
1+1 "[Kant]" came to an amazing conclusion that empiricists are wrong" I'd just add a footnote that Kant is famous for trying to bring the empiricist and idealist doctrines together under transcendental idealism, so in a sense Kant believed everyone before Kant was wrong. And then the German idealists immediately after him set about correcting him. I'm not sure there's many philosophers who will concede anyone but themselves are fully right.– J DCommented Jun 21, 2023 at 12:56
-
It's probably a bit of an exaggeration (if not blatantly wrong) to say that Kant "came to an amazing conclusion that empiricists are wrong", considering that he used empiricism himself. In any case, the question never mentioned empiricism; you seem to be strawmanning. Being able to comprehend a claim is not equivalent to being able to experience and observe evidence of that claim. If you think that God existing outside of time can be argued with rationalism then, I'll be waiting. It's also really odd that you used
1+1=2as an example, given how heavily empirical that is. Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 15:33 -
1+1=2 isn’t empirical– user62907Commented Aug 31, 2023 at 22:11
You:
I don't see how existence can't imply time
It's not completely clear to me what you mean by that, but I assume you mean that, in your opinion, existence necessarily implies time. I don't know if those words have more meaning than the peeping of baby birds (to paraphrase Zhuang-zi), but then what about, for instance, numbers? Let's take, pi. Does pi "exist"? Is pi "real"? Is it "in" time? If not "in" time, is it "outside of time"? It's definitely something, right? What about the axioms of set theory?
There is an infinite set.
"There is"? This is definitely a meaningful statement, right (unless you're an ultra-finitist)? Does this "there is" mean something different from when a lawyer says "There is evidence your honor, and ... etc"?
In logic "existence" is conceptualized (or should I just say: "rendered", "written"?) as the existential quantifier. This does not require a concept of time. In the most general sense, "there is" singles out one thing in a manifold of things. Does this assume or require time (or a concept of time)? Perhaps it only requires a concept of one/many? Or is the concept of one/many or many-as-one really the same as the "pure" intuition of time (as Brouwer suggested)?
